Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1999)71ITD169(JP.)
Per Shri R.K. Gupta, 1M. - These are four appeals by the department and four cross objections by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-9-1995. The appeals relate to assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92. The assessments were completed under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act on 29-3-1995. The assessments were completed for all the four years separately.As the facts are similar in all the four years, therefore, the assessments were completed on the same day. The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act and shown taxable income at nil. These returns were filed in response to notice under section 148 which was issued on 13-10-1992 and served on assessee on 19-10-1992. The assessee was required to file the details in regard to the claim under section 10(22). The details were filed. The assessing officer after considering all the details filed by assessee and discussing in detail in his assessment order dated 29-3-1995 disallowed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
1. These are four appeals by the Department and four cross-objections by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 21st September, 1995. The appeals relate to asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1991-92. The assessments were completed under s. 143(3)/147 of the IT Act, on 29th March, 1995. The assessments were completed for all the four years separately.As the facts are similar in all the four years, therefore, the assessments were completed on the same day. The assessee claimed exemption under s. 10(22) of the IT Act and shown taxable income at Nil. These returns were filed in response to notice under s. 148 which was issued on 13th October, 1992, and served on assessee on 19th October, 1992. The assessee was required to file the details in regard to the claim under s. 10(22). The details were filed. The AO after considering all the details filed by assessee and discussing in detail in his assessment order dt. 29th March, 1995, disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that assessee i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1986)19ITD727(JP.)
1. In this appeal by the assessee in which the assesses has taken four grounds before us. The first issue and second issue are inter-connected, the issue being whether the interest earned from deposits with bank during the course of construction of the factory as income assessable under the head 'Income from other sources' and whether the interest paid on the loans borrowed for purposes of construction, is allowable as a deduction or not.2. Mr. C.L. Jhanwar. the learned counsel for the assessee, filed the copy of this Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1979-80 dated 9-5-1985 and submitted that the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee it has been held that the interest earned during the course of construction has to be deducted from the cost of construction and cannot be treated as income.3. On the other hand, the learned senior departmental representative's argument was that the Tribunal in the order filed by the assessee has placed relianc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (2007)107TTJ(JP.)120
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 29th Aug., 2005 for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 16th Nov., 1999.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the invoking of the provisions of Section 158BD against the assessee by observing that the cash deposit in the bank account was noticed during the course of search and had there been no search, these entries would have not been detected by the Department.The action and observation of the learned CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case.3. In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,000 as undisclosed income of the assessee for the asst. yr.1996-97 comprised in the block period. The action of the learned CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case.4. The brief facts of both ...
Tag this Judgment!